# Show owners exactly why a vendor was chosen

*For managers.*

You run work across a portfolio and you answer to owners, or to a board, for every award. Three bids is policy. But three bids on three different scopes satisfies the file and not the obligation, and the question you actually have to answer — why this vendor — needs more than a stack of PDFs.

## What goes wrong today

- The three-bid rule is a fiduciary obligation, and non-comparable bids do not establish the market price it exists to find.
- Leveling four proposals by hand takes hours per project, and it is the first thing dropped when the week gets busy.
- Owners and boards ask why the winner won, and "it was the middle bid from someone we like" is not a defensible answer six months later.
- Work spans many properties with different conditions, and a vendor who bids only some of them can look cheapest for reasons that have nothing to do with price.

## What Quotrium does about it

- One scope issued to every bidder, so the three bids in the file are three bids on the same job — the thing the policy was written to produce.
- Leveling done for you: every scope line against every vendor's answer, exclusions and ambiguities scored rather than skimmed, ranked 75% on scope coverage and 25% on price.
- An owner-ready PDF report — ranked proposals, the full leveling matrix, each vendor's exclusions with their notes, and the scope's assumptions — which is the record that answers "why this vendor" without you reconstructing it.
- Multi-property projects where a vendor's per-property breakdown must reconcile to their total, and a partial bid is ranked as a partial bid instead of quietly topping the list.

## Plan

**Manager** — $129/mo · Managers running several jobs a month. [Full pricing](https://quotrium.com/pricing).

---

Source: https://quotrium.com/for/managers · Quotrium — Comparable quotes for property work